Is it better now?
- Thread starter masta247
- Start date
Though despite what Jokerman said, I think some countries are, to an extent, more insulated from this crisis than others, and so won't be affected as much.
On that note, America as an economic and social powerhouse is on its way out. That's right folks, the U.S of A dynasty is officially coming to an end.
On that note, America as an economic and social powerhouse is on its way out. That's right folks, the U.S of A dynasty is officially coming to an end.
Maybe all your compatriots will finally go back to Poland? j/k
Nah this country is fucked. Its so depressing. I might go to Poland to work.
Nah this country is fucked. Its so depressing. I might go to Poland to work.
I think that salary/cost of living ratio is improving fast and while it's not equal to that of united kingdom, considering that Polish uneducated people used to work there for the lowest salary I think it's better for them here these days. At least they understand local language :d
Look what happened yesterday. Wells Fargo predicted a $3 billion profit this quarter and their stock went up 32%, and the DOW went up 246 points. Now everyone is talking about how things are looking up and this might be the start of a turn around. I think every business journalist who says that should be lined up against a wall (street) on national tv and shot for utter incompetence.
Wells Fargo is one of those 5 major banks I said had trillions in potentially unrecoverable losses. So this $3 billion profit is only a profit if they don't count the trillions they have hanging off a cliff. They're pretending to assume those toxic investments are still good, and everyone goes along with it out of ignorance or wishful thinking. And then the market drops at the next bad news. Until it's officially announced that these companies are bankrupt, this kind of nonsense will continue.
Wells Fargo is one of those 5 major banks I said had trillions in potentially unrecoverable losses. So this $3 billion profit is only a profit if they don't count the trillions they have hanging off a cliff. They're pretending to assume those toxic investments are still good, and everyone goes along with it out of ignorance or wishful thinking. And then the market drops at the next bad news. Until it's officially announced that these companies are bankrupt, this kind of nonsense will continue.
Now this:
Wells Fargo May Need $50 Billion in Capital, KBW Says (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- Wells Fargo & Co., the second- biggest U.S. home lender, may need $50 billion to pay back the federal government and cover loan losses as the economic slump deepens, according to KBW Inc.’s Frederick Cannon.
KBW expects $120 billion of “stress” losses at Wells Fargo, assuming the recession continues through the first quarter of 2010 and unemployment reaches 12 percent, Cannon wrote today in a report. The San Francisco-based bank may need to raise $25 billion on top of the $25 billion it owes the U.S. Treasury for the industry bailout plan, he wrote.
So let's see. They made a $3 billion profit last week, and stocks went up because of that news, but this week they need $50 billion to pay back the government, and it's going to be $120 billion by next year. So if you owe $50-120 billion, how is $3 billion a "profit?" Ok, now they only have to come up with $117 billion. What a relief! And I thought they were in trouble. I'm running out and buying their stocks.
See how manipulative the news is. And this article is just talking about what they owe on loans. It dare not mention their or other banks toxic assets in the trillions. That's still a closed subject everyone's scared to think about or look at. But it's coming.
Wells Fargo May Need $50 Billion in Capital, KBW Says (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- Wells Fargo & Co., the second- biggest U.S. home lender, may need $50 billion to pay back the federal government and cover loan losses as the economic slump deepens, according to KBW Inc.’s Frederick Cannon.
KBW expects $120 billion of “stress” losses at Wells Fargo, assuming the recession continues through the first quarter of 2010 and unemployment reaches 12 percent, Cannon wrote today in a report. The San Francisco-based bank may need to raise $25 billion on top of the $25 billion it owes the U.S. Treasury for the industry bailout plan, he wrote.
So let's see. They made a $3 billion profit last week, and stocks went up because of that news, but this week they need $50 billion to pay back the government, and it's going to be $120 billion by next year. So if you owe $50-120 billion, how is $3 billion a "profit?" Ok, now they only have to come up with $117 billion. What a relief! And I thought they were in trouble. I'm running out and buying their stocks.
See how manipulative the news is. And this article is just talking about what they owe on loans. It dare not mention their or other banks toxic assets in the trillions. That's still a closed subject everyone's scared to think about or look at. But it's coming.
Here's someone else who knows what's going on.
William Black, Associate Professor, Economics and Law,
University of Missouri, Kansas City
The Lessons of the Savings-and-Loan Crisis - Barrons.com
We have failed bankers giving advice to failed regulators on how to deal with failed assets. How can it result in anything but failure? If they are going to get any truthful investigation, the Democrats picked the wrong financial team. Tim Geithner, the current Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers, chairman of the National Economic Council, were important architects of the problems. Geithner especially represents a failed regulator, having presided over the bailouts of major New York banks.
It is worse than a lie. Geithner has appropriated the language of his critics and of the forthright to support dishonesty. That is what's so appalling -- numbering himself among those who convey tough medicine when he is really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks who are on a first-name basis with Washington politicians.
His plan essentially perpetuates zombie banks by mispricing toxic assets that were mispriced to the borrower and mispriced by the lender, and which only served the unfaithful lending agent.
We already know from the real costs -- through the cleanups of IndyMac, Bear Stearns, and Lehman -- that the losses will be roughly 50 to 80 cents on the dollar. The last thing we need is a further drain on our resources and subsidies by promoting this toxic-asset market. By promoting this notion of too-big-to-fail, we are allowing a pernicious influence to remain in Washington. The truth has a resonance to it. The folks know they are being lied to.
With most of America's biggest banks insolvent, you have, in essence, a multitrillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded entities, which amounts to felony securities fraud on a massive scale.
These firms will ultimately have to be forced into receivership, the management and boards stripped of office, title, and compensation.
Right now, things don't look good. We are using taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out European banks like Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and UBS -- and even our own Goldman Sachs. To me, the single most obscene act of this scandal has been providing billions in taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out UBS in Switzerland, while we were simultaneously prosecuting the bank for tax fraud. The second most obscene: Goldman receiving almost $13 billion in AIG counterparty payments after advising Geithner, president of the New York Fed, and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs honcho, on the AIG government takeover -- and also receiving government bailout loans.
The government is reluctant to admit the depth of the problem, because to do so would force it to put some of America's biggest financial institutions into receivership. The people running these banks are some of the most well-connected in Washington, with easy access to legislators. Prompt corrective action is what is needed, and mandated in the law. And that is precisely what isn't happening.
Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.
William Black, Associate Professor, Economics and Law,
University of Missouri, Kansas City
The Lessons of the Savings-and-Loan Crisis - Barrons.com
We have failed bankers giving advice to failed regulators on how to deal with failed assets. How can it result in anything but failure? If they are going to get any truthful investigation, the Democrats picked the wrong financial team. Tim Geithner, the current Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers, chairman of the National Economic Council, were important architects of the problems. Geithner especially represents a failed regulator, having presided over the bailouts of major New York banks.
It is worse than a lie. Geithner has appropriated the language of his critics and of the forthright to support dishonesty. That is what's so appalling -- numbering himself among those who convey tough medicine when he is really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks who are on a first-name basis with Washington politicians.
His plan essentially perpetuates zombie banks by mispricing toxic assets that were mispriced to the borrower and mispriced by the lender, and which only served the unfaithful lending agent.
We already know from the real costs -- through the cleanups of IndyMac, Bear Stearns, and Lehman -- that the losses will be roughly 50 to 80 cents on the dollar. The last thing we need is a further drain on our resources and subsidies by promoting this toxic-asset market. By promoting this notion of too-big-to-fail, we are allowing a pernicious influence to remain in Washington. The truth has a resonance to it. The folks know they are being lied to.
With most of America's biggest banks insolvent, you have, in essence, a multitrillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded entities, which amounts to felony securities fraud on a massive scale.
These firms will ultimately have to be forced into receivership, the management and boards stripped of office, title, and compensation.
Right now, things don't look good. We are using taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out European banks like Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and UBS -- and even our own Goldman Sachs. To me, the single most obscene act of this scandal has been providing billions in taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out UBS in Switzerland, while we were simultaneously prosecuting the bank for tax fraud. The second most obscene: Goldman receiving almost $13 billion in AIG counterparty payments after advising Geithner, president of the New York Fed, and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs honcho, on the AIG government takeover -- and also receiving government bailout loans.
The government is reluctant to admit the depth of the problem, because to do so would force it to put some of America's biggest financial institutions into receivership. The people running these banks are some of the most well-connected in Washington, with easy access to legislators. Prompt corrective action is what is needed, and mandated in the law. And that is precisely what isn't happening.
Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.
Slowly, the cat is coming out of the bag.
IMF: Toxic asset fallout could reach $4 trillion - Apr. 21, 2009
Toxic asset fallout could reach $4 trillion.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The International Monetary Fund has raised its estimate of the amount of toxic assets that banks and financial institutions will have to dispose of or write down to $4 trillion.
(Make it at least $50 trillion when all is said and done.)
IMF: Toxic asset fallout could reach $4 trillion - Apr. 21, 2009
Toxic asset fallout could reach $4 trillion.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The International Monetary Fund has raised its estimate of the amount of toxic assets that banks and financial institutions will have to dispose of or write down to $4 trillion.
(Make it at least $50 trillion when all is said and done.)
Things like mortgage-backed securities, hedge funds, credit-default swaps, which are basically insurance on financial deals, and other complicated derivatives.
One thing that happened from around 2001 to 2006 is that new mortgages were quickly sold in the secondary market. The very existence of this secondary market gave mortgage issuers incentives to approve bad loans, i.e., sub-prime mortgages. Because these issuers generally faced little risk once the mortgage was sold, their incentive was to issue as many as possible. The next step was in the hands of the banks that bought and bundled the loans into mortgage-backed securities. There also was a proliferation of new and more complex financial instruments during this period. Major banks were making muti-billion dollar transactions selling assets that neither they nor their customers understood. A lot of these were what’s called "off balance sheet" transactions. They were hidden from regulators and investors. It was a market ripe for fraud and manipulation.
How much is toxic? US banks have $10.5 trillion in assets vs. $176 trillion in derivative debts. You do the math.
And world derivative debt is $1.14 quadrillion.
One thing that happened from around 2001 to 2006 is that new mortgages were quickly sold in the secondary market. The very existence of this secondary market gave mortgage issuers incentives to approve bad loans, i.e., sub-prime mortgages. Because these issuers generally faced little risk once the mortgage was sold, their incentive was to issue as many as possible. The next step was in the hands of the banks that bought and bundled the loans into mortgage-backed securities. There also was a proliferation of new and more complex financial instruments during this period. Major banks were making muti-billion dollar transactions selling assets that neither they nor their customers understood. A lot of these were what’s called "off balance sheet" transactions. They were hidden from regulators and investors. It was a market ripe for fraud and manipulation.
How much is toxic? US banks have $10.5 trillion in assets vs. $176 trillion in derivative debts. You do the math.
And world derivative debt is $1.14 quadrillion.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.